1. Complementarian husbands do not treat their wives as equals.
2. The Bible teaches that males should lead, in the home and church.
3. Egalitarian women are offended when men open doors for them.
4. Egalitarian husbands never abuse their wives.
5. Egalitarians believe that we should have unisex toilets in public places.
6. Women start more cults than men do.
7. The Bible teaches that women are more easily deceived than men.
8. More complementarians abuse their wives than egalitarians.
9. Egalitarians believe that women should be able to pastor churches.
10. Adam was created first, so Eve (and all other women since her) should obey their husbands.
UPDATE, July 26: I have written fairly lengthy responses to these ten points. Feel free to respond to them, if you wish to continue discussion on any of these points. Thank you to each person who has commented on this post so far.
Wayne,
We need to discuss the meaning of abuse. To me it has many dimensions but one is the spectrum between control and abandonment.
In one case, hypercontrol leads to marital rape, violence, invasion of the other person’s physical, emotional and spiritual being.
In the other case, there is neglect, betrayal and abandonment, also damaging.
Both are very painful and should not be discounted. However, I do see complementarianism as facilitating the control of the husband over the wife. I don’t think we are going to see statistics which represent reality on this, since it does not need to be physical abuse.
I would be interested in seeing how egalitarian teaching facilitates either of these two forms of abuse. That’s the thing. What is the extreme form of egalitarianism, and I mean based on the specific published teaching of Christian egalitarians.
Yes, Sue, it’s important to define abuse. It comes in all kinds of forms. Abuse is anything which one person does to another which damages the other. It can happen regardless of what people believe, their theology or ideology. People abuse because they are trying to control others (as you pointed out), trying to feel better about themselves (if they have low self esteem, for instance), or if they come from a family where abuse was a pattern of life. (And I’m sure there are other reasons for abuse.)
I’ve seen godly people abuse their spouses. They may not be aware of their abuse; I suspect that often they are not.
I’ve seen wives abuse husbands and husbands abuse wives. I’ve watched with horror and deep sadness as my father has abused my mother.
I’ll be interested to see how others respond to this particular part of my 10 points.
I’ll be interested to hear from egalitarians who have experienced abuse from their spouses.
I will say that both of the situations that I described were in the “egalitarian” phase of our marriage.
Wayne,
1. Some do and some don’t. Some truly treat their wives with honor and respect and as full partners. Some treat their wives as a superior army officer treats an inferior. *shrugs* There is no “this is *always* how it looks.”
2. If a person interprets head to mean leader/authority, then that person could say the Bible teaches that males should lead. It really all comes down to the interpretational grid.
3. I don’t know of anyone in real life or online who finds having a door opened for them offensive.
4. I think anyone can abuse anyone. There is no magic pill that makes a person unable to abuse. Egalitarian men are not, however, able to use their theological framework as justification for abuse.
5. I’ve never met an egal that thinks so. I believe a certain sect of radical feminism believes in uni-sex toilets and erasing all other sexual distinctions. But they aren’t Christian egalitarians.
6. I am an avid researcher/reader of cults, and have to say that more cults are started by men. Some cults have been started by women, however. As have some positive Christ-honoring movements (Red Cross, 4-Square Churches, etc). Just as men have began good and not-so-good organizations (Joseph Smith, anyone?)…
7. The Bible doesn’t actually say that. However, it is commonly assumed/interpreted as saying such.
8. I am not aware of the statistics. However, I believe that a framework that sets men up as leaders would be a framework that would draw male abusers (in that it would agree with their inherent belief that men are superior).
9. Yes.
10. This is a common argument used to prove male leadership. Whether or not it is a logical argument is certainly in question.
Love to Wayne,
Molly
1. By egalitarian definition complementarians do not see men and women as equal so true.
2. false
3. False
4. False.
5. Most disabled toilets are unisex, toilets in france always seemed to be unisex when I was a kid, all new “superloos” are unisex, if they are separate cubicles then who cares (well at work many women seem feel that men do not clean up properly after themselves and so prefer separate facilities).
6. No idea. Although it would surprise me. Does depend on definitions though (if you consider fashion to be about cults then your view may differ).
7. false
8. IMHO Complementarianism can made it difficult to have abuse taken seriously, men seeking dominance may be predisposed to male headship views. Male Headship does make women more vulnerable as they told to submit. Does this work out as a higher %, don’t know. But I see male headship as a form of abuse anyway.
9. Yes
10. Adam was not if you take gender seriously in Hebrew. Anyway seems totally irrelevant to me.
1) Some complementarians treat their wives as their “better half”, seeking out their counsel and treat them as co-heirs in Christ.
2) I believe that is the pattern of Scripture, yes.
3) Some are. Some aren’t.
4) False.
5) Some do. We (here) refer to “egalitarian” in a theological sense. Many secular egalitarians go far beyond most Christian egalitarians.
6) I don’t know. I’ve studied religious history a bit and it seems about 50/50.
7) Scripture? I’ve heard that, but it isn’t the basis for complementarianism.
9) Most do.
10)Obey or submit? I don’t think it was that one thing, but I believe that there is a reason for the differences in creation and all of the accounts that follow.
1. I still think equal but different in practice means unequal. but i do know couples who are comp in theory and egal in practice, si i don’t want to go overboard with the generalisations
2. False
3. No, none that I’ve met
4. never is way too sweeping. Some people are just abusers, whatever paradigm they acknowledge, but I would like tobelieve it’s a lot less
5. Never heard of that one
6. False.
7. False
8. I believe this is true
9. yep. I certainly do, anyway
10.False. I really believe that male headship is a problem from the fall, not the way God originally created things to be.
As a recovering hard comp, I will quote some prominent comps for a couple of these:
2. The Bible teaches that males should lead, in the home and church.
From: John MacArthur “An Excellent Wife”
QUOTE:” But in God’s economy being a homemaker is an exalted role.
The sphere of the woman’s duty is the home. She is the ruler of the house, the oikodespotes” ENDQUOTE
ME: While I believe that God gives women other spheres (and I can support that Biblically) I am gratified that MacArthur acknowledges that she is the ruler of the household (although he should have 1 Tim 5:14 as the reference in his article not Titus 2:5)
8. More complementarians abuse their wives than egalitarians.
ME: Mainly the ones who are “into authority and submission” finger wagging as a “log and splinter” habit of deflecting their own sin and controlling others. Here is Nancy Wilson on that:
NANCY, Mrs Doug WILSON: From Submission Requires Courage
QUOTE: Often, and sadly, my husband and I have noticed that the men who are “into” authority and submission, are often themselves the most unsubmissive members of the church. They claim to understand submission when it comes to those who are under their authority (their wives, children, or employees), but they fail to submit themselves to the authority of the elders or the civil authorities. If the elders make a decision, these are the men who refuse to comply. They are the men who make a stink. But woe to their own wives or children if they disagree with dad.ENDQUOTE
It’s probably only fair that I try to give answers to my own questions in this post. First, I want to emphasize that I wrote this post partly tongue-in-cheek. By that I mean that I wanted us to see that there is diversity among complementarians and egalitarians, and I also wanted us to recognize that some of the stereotypes we have of each other are rather shallow.
OK, here we go:
1. Some do, some don’t, and it depends on definitions of “treat” and “equals”. For some people, simply recognizing differences between men and women (or between any two people, for that matter) is a kind of complementarianism. For others complementarianism is a fairly well developed theological and ideological system. Many complementarians truly believe that they treat their spouses as equals if they view them as having equal value as themselves. For some egalitarians, it is not enough to have equal value. There must be equal access to the same opportunities and roles in life, other than those which are biologically determined such as who in a marriage is able to bear children.
I have seen dysfunctional and unspiritual complementarians as well as egalitarians. I have seen complementarians who act like equalitarians. I have observed marriages which *believe* that the Bible teaches complementarianism and they believe that they live out those teachings in the Bible, but in actuality the wife is the head of the home, in the sense of being the boss, the one who makes the decisions.
Conversely, there are people who are theologically or ideologically egalitarian who ultimately behave with one or the other spouse as the leader.
I confess to becoming somewhat skeptical about labels after seeing so much variation between theological and ideological claims and the way people actually live. I can’t really be sure whether someone should be labeled an egalitarian or complementarian based on how they behave or on what they say they believe.
2. As I have often stated, I do not find anywhere in the Bible where it says that men are to lead women in the home or church. I do find that the Bible clearly states that a man is to be the kephale of his wife. I’m content to translate that Greek word as “head.” But nowhere in the Bible is kephale defined as having the meaning that the English word “head” has when it is used of a boss or leader or authority. Please note, I am only speaking here of what is found in the Bible itself. It may be that there is some evidence from extrabiblical Greek that kephale had meanings relating to being a leader. I also find that the Bible clearly teaches that there is a wonderful and important unity between a head and its body. The Bible teaches that a man and his wife become “one flesh” as part of this unity. These things are clear. Other things are not so clear, from the Bible itself, when it comes to complementarian or egalitarian claims. Because of that, I wish that we would have greater grace toward each other, and I wish that we would reduce how we claim that “our” side is the one that should be called “biblical.” I prefer to use the label “biblical” for those things which most of us can agree are cleared *stated* in the Bible itself. I am content to recognize that there will be differences in interpretations for things which are not clearly stated and clearly stated enough times that it should be obvious that it was something God felt was vital for us to know, believe, and follow.
3. I don’t think that this follows. I thin, if someone recognizes the intent of a cultural act, such as opening the door for someone, they will feel honored, whether they are a woman or a man. I appreciate it when another man opens the door for me, as a gesture of honor. And I like to open doors for other men, as well as for women. It would not bother me if a woman wanted to honor me by opening a door for me.
4. False. Both egalitarians and complementarian spouses (not just husbands) abuse each other. We abuse because we are sinners.
5. False. And I consider suggesting any connection between Christian egalitarianism and unisex toilets is misleading and irrelevant. I prefer not to use unisex toilets unless they are private and I can lock the door. That’s my personal preference. I accidentally used a women’s toilet at an airport a few months ago. When I walked out of the stall and noticed women in front of the sinks, I was deeply embarrassed and just kept walking, getting out of there as quickly as I could.
There is a misconception among some that egaliarians want women to become men or act like men and men to act like women. This is silly and it confuses what real manhood and real womanhood is about. A real man loves, sacrifices for, and protects his wife, as David Lang has been blogging. But there is nothing wrong, or unbiblical, when a woman protects her husband. She may do so verbally, as when she might protect his reputation from slander. Similarly, it is not effeminate for real men to listen tenderly to their wives or even to give details about their work days to their wives. Nor is it defeminizing for women to pilot airplanes, drive trucks, or do any number of other things in life which both men and women are physically capable of doing.
Too many of the arguments about what is and is not proper for men and women are, I suggest, reflections of our own cultures, rather than reflecting a biblical mindset.
6. False. I’ve often heard it emphasized how women have started cults–and that is given as a reason why women should not have positions of spiritual leadership. But men have started far more cults than men.
7. False. The Bible teaches that Eve was deceived while Adam knowingly sinned. It does not teach that women (plural) are deceived any more than men.
8. I don’t know if this is true or not. I have not done the research necessary to know. Because complementarianism teaches that a man should lead or have authority or his wife, some abusive men *can* and do use that teaching to justify bossing their wives so much that it turns to outright abuse. But because we are all sinners, men who claim to believe in egalitarian marriage can also abuse. Any of us can abuse anyone else. Abuse is not a gender thing, although far too many women, including my own dear mother, are abused. And churches have not done nearly enough to help the vulnerable, weaker people under their care.
9. Many, perhaps most, do. Some egalitarians would say that all spiritual gifts and giftings are available to both women and men, but women should not authoritatively teach or preach to men, following traditional interpretations of 1 Tim. 2.
10. There are at least two problems with the way this one is stated. First, women are never taught in the Bible to “obey” their husbands. Instead, they are taught to submit to their heads, which are their husbands. This said in the context of teaching that we are to submit to one another within the Body of Christ. We can find out what a woman’s submission to her husband can look like by reviewing examples of godly submission one to another among God’s people.
The Bible simply does not lay down rules or even guidelines for what biblical submission of a wife to a husband will entail. It doesn’t say that a husband will have the last word. It doesn’t say that a wife’s primary task in life is to support whatever her husband’s lifework is. The Bible is silent on so many of the issues that so many people claim are “biblical.”
Where the Bible is silent, I believe we should be tolerant of one another, willing to accept differences of opinion, and loving extend grace to one another rather than judging one another.
Wayne,
I find a lot of wisdom in your words. I also really appreciate your heart.
This post may very well be deleted. But, I’m going to write it anyway. The topic of male/female relationships is a valid thing. . .with one small proviso. The manner in which we treat those among us also defines how we behave in the world. I have felt both hope and despair at different junctures in this conversation. Sometimes, I have felt we might as well be discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. So what is the point of this conversation? It should be service. You have a nice top ten list here. Might I offer a top ten list of how those same issues play out with the homeless, drug addict, and mentally ill–who we are called to serve:
1. Do christians treat homeless as equals.
2. Does the Bible teach that the competent lead in the homeless shelter? (because we are largely left to staff with the homeless themselves)
3. Why are homeless offended by “help” offerred by churches (usually in the form of canned beets and cranberry sauce).
4. Is it Biblical for christians to say, “the homeless WANT to be homeless,” let them help themselves first–our obligation ends there.
5. Is it Biblical to lump all homeless into one “unisex toilet” of one size fits all under supported programs?
6. Is it Biblical that homelss cause more crime and immorality than the wealthy (statistics disprove this).
7. Are homeless less in faith than wealthy?
8. Is there more abuse/violence among homeless than wealthy? (once again, statistics disprove this).
9. If homelss are so spiritually deficient why are they left to minister faith to one another–we’ll even take women ministers here.
10. T/F Christians are at “the front of the line” so everyone else can “go to hell.”
These are very rude questions and I have one more. What use is this conversation if it does not result in the actions of Christ? I am out here busting my keeester simply because there is NOT ONE lovely, “spiritual christian” who will get off their keeester and help. For every hour that you have blogged have you likewise spent an hour clothing the naked? I guarantee you, the needs in your communities are just as endless as they are in mine. Have lovely conversations. . . but inbetween, get off your keeesters for a while.
Hi Wayne and other readers and posters here.
I’m interested in how you would define Complementarian and Egalitarian as used in the True/False statements you have posted.
In my view, a man who abused his wife could not honestly claim to be a Complementarian or an Egalitarian, since both groups acknowledge that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church.
David asked:
I’m interested in how you would define Complementarian and Egalitarian as used in the True/False statements you have posted.
In my view, a man who abused his wife could not honestly claim to be a Complementarian or an Egalitarian, since both groups acknowledge that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church.
You’ve raised an important issue, David. My impression is that complementarian and egalitarian are typically defined on the basis of the ideal, of what the behavior is supposed to be. We all know that many (most?) of us often fall short of the ideal.
Based on typical definitions I’ve seen and discussions on this blog, I would define a complementarian as someone who views men and women as having different roles in marriage and the church. An egalitarian is someone who believes that, other than for biological difference, women and men can have the same roles in marriage and the church.
Now, nothing is said in these definitions about abuse or love or sacrifice. I’ve not seen complementarianism or egalitarianism definted in these terms before.
Perhaps it is time to define complementarians and egalitarians as people who actually live out the beliefs that they espouse.
What do the rest of you think?
Wayne,
This is a good question. I think many people see complementarians as only Christians, and egalitarians as the full range of Christians and non-Christians.
However, I believe that many non-Christians are in their belief system complementarian.
So, these are paradigms that we hold whether or not we are Christians. Complementarianism, as an authority-submission relationship finds its clearest expression in Aristotle, and some forms of Judaism. It is not unique to Christianity or even originating in Christianity or even in religion. It can also be (and is by some) derived from Darwinian evolutionary thinking.
If the complementarian is defined as a Christian then so must the egalitarian. But those who profess Christianity are still sinners. There is no such thing as the non-sinful comp or egal, man or woman. That is why giving men more power and authority always demeans a woman. Unless she gains power in some other way, to counterbalance it. To live in a position of less power than another sinful human is by definition degrading. We as citizens and employees are buttressed against degradation by the collective. There is no other reason. So no man can ever not degrade his wife if he holds more power than her. He makes her less. That is why comps who are godly give their wives domain based authority, or live as effective egalitarians.
So many egal arguments seem to make some sense when the analysis is static. Does any individual egal woman really need a man to protect her? Perhaps, she doesn’t.
But, consider the dynamic implications of that position. What would the world look like if men, in general, (and Christian men, in particular) didn’t view women to be weaker vessels – if husbands didn’t realize their wives’ emotional vulnerability, physically vulnerability, and resulting need for protection? I shudder to think of how dangerous and predatory the world would be if men weren’t protective of women.
I shudder to think of how dangerous and predatory the world would be if men weren’t protective of women.
They aren’t. The world is dangerous and predatory for many women. So, dynamically, a woman needs to learn how to protect herself. Don’t we teach young women this?
Hi Sue
I can see how a person could embrace some egalitarian views, but not be a Christian. But I can’t see a non-Christian taking a Biblical Complementarian position.
Would a non-Christian man really be attempting to love his wife as Christ loved the church?
Does any individual egal woman really need a man to protect her? Perhaps, she doesn’t.
But, consider the dynamic implications of that position. What would the world look like if men, in general, (and Christian men, in particular) didn’t view women to be weaker vessels
It doesn’t take long to see it…
(collective) we don’t need men at all.
Ask Minnie Driver
“It’s great to be an independent creature. Today you don’t need a man any more.”
David M,
I can see how a person could embrace some egalitarian views, but not be a Christian. But I can’t see a non-Christian taking a Biblical Complementarian position.
Likewise, a non-Christian would not take a biblically egal position.
Would a non-Christian man really be attempting to love his wife as Christ loved the church?
The rate of physical abuse and divorce is similar across demographics. (comps may have a bit higher rate but certainly no less) Therefore, I would have to assume that Christian complementarian men do not actually treat their wives any better, on average, than non-Christians.
Being a Christian changes the excuses a man uses for why he abuses, not that he is drunk, but that she “caused him to do it” a la Bruce Ware.
The core of complementarianism is hierarchy, that is how it is distinguished from egalitarianism, because egalitarian Christians also teach a husband to love his wife as Christ loves the church. Comps cannot claim this for themselves uniquely.
So, what is the distinctive of compelementarianism? That the husband has more power, that he SHOULD have more power. Lots of non-Christians also believe that. In fact, this was the predominant non-Christian belief until first wave feminism, which came out of Christianity. So we can see that egalitarianism is more distinctly Christian than hierarchy in marriage.
Let’s consider a man who is not perfect, one who is on occasion selfish. The wife is then subject to his selfishness, and denied rights over her own body, by having to be obedient. This, so far, could happen to anyone. But the kicker is that the wife who is taught male authority in the church is now spiritually abused by being taught that her suffering is ordained by God, and this is what she ought to be joyfully enjoying, that this suffering is for that woman what God has created her for in the garden of Eden. Paradise is the man leading and the wife following and this is misery to her. The woman who has a selfish husband suffers and her suffering is the witness of how loving Christ is. What do non-Christians think of this?
So, when everything in her wants to escape the selfish abuse of her husband, the comp doctrine tells her that all her legitimate feelings of recoil are actually illegitimate. I personally cannot think of a more intense torture.
They aren’t. The world is dangerous and predatory for many women. So, dynamically, a woman needs to learn how to protect herself. Don’t we teach young women this?
Statistically, the fastest way to make sure that a child is abused is to remove the father. (Per CDC)
Straus, Gelles and Steinmentz published a study that found that in married couples that experienced domestic violence, 27% was by the man alone. 24% was by the woman alone. The remaining 49% showed both partners actively participating in violence. It seems that the world is a dangerous and predatory place for men also. (Ironically, one of the researchers had a bomb threat at her daughter’s wedding…apparently feminists took took exception to the finding that women can be violent also and responded in a way that threatened…violence. And she is not the only one of the group that received threats)
Dynamically, it is statistically incorrect to pin violence on men.
Therefore, I would have to assume that Christian complementarian men do not actually treat their wives any better, on average, than non-Christians.
I do not assume that all marriage problems begin with the man. I would also assume that Christian egalitarian women do not actually treat their husbands better, on average, than non-Christians.
You are focused on the wrong target.
So, when everything in her wants to escape the selfish abuse of her husband, the comp doctrine tells her that all her legitimate feelings of recoil are actually illegitimate. I personally cannot think of a more intense torture.
Even CBMW (the really bad guys) teach that abuse is sin.
They even teach that selfishness is sin.
They teach that a wife is correct in confronting her husband’s sin.
1. Complementarian husbands do not treat their wives as equals.
hmmm… depends on your definition of complementarian and your definition of equal and which complementarian couple you are talking about. I’ve seen some where it certainly looks like a marriage of equals and some where one would be hard put to gain that impression. I’m more interested in what CBMW and others teach that ALL relationships SHOULD look like.
2. The Bible teaches that males should lead, in the home and church.
I think so but I don’t think it should look the way it often does, even if that is the case. As a woman, I can feel isolated and not particularly relevant in my hierarchial complementarian (HComp) church (which I generally love, BTW). If men are supposed to lead in some unique way women don’t, it’s hard to believe that Jesus really meant that leadership to exclude women or relegate them to a secondary status in his church or even their own homes.
3. Egalitarian women are offended when men open doors for them.
Well, my prior answer probably precludes me from being a full egalitarian and I’m not a hierarchial complementarian either – but I’ve never been offended by having a man open a door for me. I say “thank you” and am grateful for his act of courtesy. On the other hand, I’ve had HComp men act a little taken aback and maybe offended if I happen to get to a door first and open it w/out waiting patiently for them — or worse yet, hold it for them.
4. Egalitarian husbands never abuse their wives.
Who would assert something so universal?
5. Egalitarians believe that we should have unisex toilets in public places.
Not that I know of — at least not an Es who are coming at the position from a Christian perspective.
6. Women start more cults than men do.
well, if you include prominent heresies, probably not.
7. The Bible teaches that women are more easily deceived than men.
I don’t think so, though HComps love to amplify that verse of Paul’s.
8. More complementarians abuse their wives than egalitarians.
I have no idea but hierarchial complementarian teaching and the practice of many church elders tends to provide more “cover” in the mind of the abuser for his behavior than egalitarian teaching would.
9. Egalitarians believe that women should be able to pastor churches.
Sure seems that way — that’s probably the only reason I’m not fully E — I still think the Bible has set up an obstacle to that.
10. Adam was created first, so Eve (and all other women since her) should obey their husbands.
I don’t think so but every HComp book I’ve read teaches that.